Reducing faking in tests

Whilst faking is a perennial issue, designers of selection tests have a number of tools and
techniques available that can be used to counteract or at least detect this.

Initial instructions

At the start of a test, the instructions given to candidates can include
warnings of the consequences of detected faking and request honesty.
Instructions may also ask candidates to answer quickly, with their first
thoughts rather than pondering. Holden et al (2001, p160) indicate that lying
takes time. This is also supported by Ekman’s (1985) general study of lying.

Trick questions

It is also possible to include ‘trick’ questions, where a faking response is
easily identified and hence raises suspicions about all other responses. For
example in an assessment of a given set of skills, a multiple-choice question
may have no right answer. Earlier assertions may later be probed in more detail.

Multiple sources

Instruments that use self-reporting may give false readings when they are
used by candidates who have insufficient self-insight to be able to be answer
fully. If information is collected from multiple sources
then this problem may be reduced, for example through the use of ‘assessment
centres’ where multiple methods and assessors give a range of data and
viewpoints which can be cross-checked.

Safe answer

Test takers who use the ‘central response tendency’ and opt for ‘safe’
central options may be identified by asking different questions for which a
consistent response would include high and low responses.

Where individuals have a high need for approval, they may tend towards
positive ‘agree’ and ‘yes’ responses. This may be countered and detected by
reversing some questions (reversing also breaks up habituating patterns of
similar responses). This tendency towards seeking approval may also be detected
by including a ‘social desirability’ scale within the questions to enable
isolation of this.

Multiple questions

Assessing the same attribute with multiple questions can also show whether
the candidate is averaging across questions (‘I’ve been a bit negative, I think
I shall be positive for a while now.’), although obvious care needs to be taken
to ensure that similar questions are interpreted in the intended way. Analysis
of sequential patterns of positive and negative responses across responses may
also identify uncertainty or deliberate averaging.

Ipsative questions

Normative items ask the candidate to rate their level of agreement with
statements, and can give a good measure of psychological characteristics (Kline,
1993). However the question of faking has led to an ipsative approach being used
in many contexts, where the test-taker is forced to make a choice from a fixed
number of options. Ipsative questions either offer choice between items from
very different areas (one question I recall from such a test is ‘Which do you
prefer, a poem or a gun?’), or a polar choice from the same scale, which may
have a yes/no response.

However, as Johnson et al (1988) has pointed out, ipsative forced-choice
approaches are highly problematic. The very notion that you can ‘force’ someone
to do something denudes them of free will and the very real problems of
respondents either second-guessing or making a random choice from a set of items
amongst which they have no clear preference. Martin et al (1995) have shown that
test takers with a good insight into job needs can provide realistic faked
responses. Ipsative methods still persist, in particular where sound
alternatives are not available, for example the Zuckerman, Eysenck & Eysenck
(1978) scale of sensation-seeking is still in used, despite the report by
Ridgeway & Russell (1980) on unacceptably low reliabilities for the various
sub-scales.

Question opacity

Faking may also be reduced by use of item opacity, where the respondent does
not know ‘right or wrong’ answers. For example use of Biodata approaches, where
traits and historic activities have been correlated with requirements of the job
in question, can offer very opaque questions (such as the WW2 discovery of the
correlation between childhood flying of model aeroplanes and good pilots).

Including the candidate

Including the candidate in the assessment process can also help to reduce
faking, socialising them into providing honest responses. This may be
implemented, for example, in assessment centres, where they may be involved in
discussions about psychometric outcomes.